I was just assuming "clutter" was being used idiomatically. But you are right about the way they lay it out in this game. If the maps had high vantage sight lines over "open" areas containing strategic cover, then long range players (campers) could use sniper or suppressing LMG fire to provide cover for the mobile players (run-and-gunners). This would require better map design (allowing for defensible positions) and "protected" or selectable (but not strategically offensive) spawn sites. One idea would to have "out of bounds" spawn sites behind certain areas that allow players a certain amount of limited time to enter the map.
[I wrote the above before I saw the trailer for squads. From what I see, I am hoping the squad mode play will promote a more strategic type of game play.]
It tends to be the case that there are a few nice vantage points in each map, but they aren't defensible. And what's worse, they're easily flanked. Even more troublesome, the enemy could just respawn behind your position at any time. Add all that up, and its suicidal to play defensively.
The irony is that camping is often said to be a major problem. This happens because defensive players can't use vantage points, so their only practical option is to back into a corner and just guard themselves. A major device that each map should have is a pair of defensible vantage points that face one-another. Let defensive players try to outgun the enemy team's defensive players. Suddenly the aggressive flankers have a purpose in getting to the opposing side's position to tip the fight to their team's favor.
It seems we are pretty much in agreement on the subject.
It really hoses me off to weed my way to a nice vantage point, lay claymore and a couple of shock grenades, only to have somebody charge through a door or window and mow me down before I can even get off a shot.
As to the camper thing - I usually have to turn off chat, because every time I stop for a couple of seconds, get the lay of the land, and get a kill or two I get called a "bleeping" camper. Seeking cover and trying to get kills without getting killed is common sense. But as the game does no really penalize you for deaths (which I think it should), you are going to have a preponderance of players going 25 and 20 (or so). It makes more sense personally to me to go 15 and 3, get 5 to 10 assists, and take down a few aircraft - and have fun doing it.
Yes but if they tried that the casual gamer would have it too hard, would not like the game and not buy the next one because of it. All that would be left would be diehard fans that stayed.
Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure. I think a lot of the kiddies would stay. They tend to stick around even when they're going 3-20. I think they're just happy to be in the game at all - they certainly don't seem to be too bothered about winning or getting a decent score
Some would stay yes, but those that no longer found it fun because it was not easy anymore would not.
so long as they're pitted against similarly skilled players I think they would just adapt. So long as CoD is still the "cool" game to play. We could see a return of some players also if there was a greater learning curve and skill-gap
I know I hate it when I get hit markers. if you hit someone with a bullet they shouldn't be able to move back into cover and wait for you with a shotgun. a hit marker should indicate that you have a kill not that an enemy is eating bullets. I feel like they should either make the bullet damage higher (which is what I recommend) or make it so that their is less cover to move to after you are hit. and seriously I am tired of getting shotgunned or quickscoped after I shoot an enemy in the face.
Have you thought about playing some hardcore? You'd never have to worry about shotgunners or snipers taking you out in one shot if you're putting bullets on target. All the guns almost instantly at most ranges so its a much more level playing field weapon wise.